Ex Parte 7502838 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

95002330 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/002,330 09/14/2012 7502838 2525.968REX2 7397
111420 7590 03/30/2016
Bechen PLLC
9200 Forest Hill Ave
Suite 4-C
Richmond, VA 23235
EXAMINER
FERRIS III, FRED O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
GOOGLE INC. and FACEBOOK INC.
Requester

v.

DROPLETS, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2
Technology Center 3900

____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

2
Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) (2002) from the final
decision of the Examiner adverse to the patentability of claims 1–38. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (2002).
We affirm.

Invention
The ’838 patent describes a method and system for delivering
interactive links for presenting applications and second information at a
client computer from remote resources in a network-configured computer
processing system. Abstract.

Claims
Claims 1–38 are subject to reexamination and have been rejected.
Claims 1–38 are original patent claims. Claims 1, 15, 29, and 33 are
independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added).
1. A method for presenting an application in a networked computer
processing system having a plurality of client computers and a
plurality of host computers, the method comprising:

retrieving, in response to a request of a client computer, a content
item having computer program code embedded therein, execution
of the embedded computer program code establishing a
communication connection to a host computer;

sending operating environment information regarding the client
computer from the client computer to the host computer;
retrieving presentation information to present an application and
content, the presentation information being based on the operating
environment information and comprising at least one of instructions
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

3
for rendering components of the application, default parameters and
data values exhibited within the components, and application-
specific business logic for processing input to the presented
application; and

presenting, at the client computer, the application and the content
based upon the presentation information.

Prior Art
Davis US 5,796,952 Aug. 18, 1998
Frese US 5,909,545 June. 1, 1999
Hickman US 6,173,332 B1 Jan. 9, 2001
Orenshteyn US 6,393,569 B1 May 21, 2002

ArcView Internet Map Server, Map Publishing on the Web, pp.1–60,
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., United States (1996–97)
(hereinafter “ArcView”).

Livingston and Straub, Windows 98 Secrets, pp. 1–1207, Hungry Media,
Inc., United States (March 24, 1998) (hereinafter “Livingston”).

The Santa Cruz Operation Technical White Paper, Tarantella—The
Universal Application Server, pp.1–13, (July 1997) (hereinafter
“Tarantella”).

Hahn, The Internet Complete Reference, Second Edition, pp. 1–161 and
176–199, Osborne McGraw-Hill, United States (1996) (hereinafter “Hahn”)

Neibauer, Running Microsoft Outlook 98, pp. 1–239, Microsoft Press,
United States (1998) (hereinafter “Neibauer”).

Owner’s Contentions

Patent Owner contends that the Examiner erred in entering the
following grounds of rejections against claims 1–38 (App. Br. 7–44; Reb.
Br. 2–22):
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

4
A. The rejection of claims 1, 15, 29–36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Frese. App. Br. 7–11; Reb. Br. 17–18.
B. The rejection of claims 2, 4–8, 12–14, 16, 18–22, 26–28, 31, 32,
and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frese in view of
Hickman. App. Br. 11–15; Reb. Br. 2–5, 13–15.
C. The rejection of claims 3 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Frese, Hickman, and Admitted Prior Art (“APA”).
App. Br. 15–16.
D. The rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, 17, 20, 23, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Frese and Windows Secrets.
App. Br. 16–19; Reb. Br. 5–6, 15.
E. The rejection of claims 9, 10, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Frese in view of Hickman in view of Outlook 98. App.
Br. 19–20.
F. The rejection of claims 11 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Frese, Hickman, Outlook 98, and Hahn. App. Br. 20–21.
G. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21–23, 29,
30, and 33–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of
Tarantella and Frese. App. Br. 21–31; Reb. Br. 6–8, 18–21.
H. The rejection of claims 3, 9, 17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable in view of Tarantella, Frese, and Windows Secrets. App. Br.
31–32.
I. The rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12–14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and
26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Tarantella, Frese,
and Orenshteyn. App. Br. 32–34; Reb. Br. 8–9.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

5
J. The rejection of claims 3, 9, 17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable in view of the combination of Tarantella, Frese, Orenshteyn,
and Windows Secrets. App. Br. 34–35.
K. The rejection of claims 10, 11, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Tarantella, Frese, Orenshteyn, Windows
98, and Davis. App. Br. 35–36.
L. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 15, 16, 18–20, 29, and 31–38
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by the published document
ArcView. App. Br. 36–41; Reb. Br. 9–11, 15–16, 21–22.
M. The rejection of claims 2, 4–6, 16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable in view of the combination of ArcView and
Orenshteyn. App. Br. 41–42; Reb. Br 11–12, 16–17.
N. The rejection of claims 3, 9, 17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable in view of ArcView, Orenshteyn, and Windows Secrets.
App. Br. 42–43.
O. The rejection of claims 2, 12–14, 16, and 26–28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable in view of ArcView and Windows Secrets. App.
Br. 43; Reb. Br. 12–13.
P. The rejection of claims 9, 10, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable in view of ArcView and Outlook 98. App. Br. 44.
Q. The rejection of claims 11 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of ArcView, Outlook 98, and Hahn. App. Br. 44
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

6
ANALYSIS
Ground of Rejection A
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 15,
29-36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Frese because
Frese fails to disclose “sending operating environment . . . to the host
computer.” Patent Owner argues that the Examiner asserted that remote
application server (RAS) 20 in Frese depicts the host computer and that user
system 16 depicts the client computer. Patent Owner points out that Frese
requires remote control service publisher (RCSP) 12 to be the intermediary
“because the RAS 20 operates to execute the application 22 and mirror the
user system 16.” App. Br. 8. Consequently, Patent Owner argues that Frese
teaches sending operating environment information to RSCP 12, which is
not the host computer, but rather operates as an intermediary. App. Br. 7–9.
Patent Owner also argues that Frese fails to disclose “presenting, at
the client computer, the application and the content based upon the
presentation information.” Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Frese
operates to insulate application 22 on the RAS 20 and consequently, the
remote display module (RDM) cannot be properly interpreted as the claimed
“application,” as relied upon by the Examiner. Id. at 10–11; Reb. Br. 17–18.
In response to Patent Owner’s first argument above, the Examiner
notes that in one embodiment, at column 8, lines 5–8, Frese expressly
teaches that RAS 20 “‘may reside on the same computer implementing
RCSP 12’” and consequently does disclose “sending operating environment”
to the “host computer” in that embodiment. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

7
Regarding Patent Owner’s second argument that the RDM “cannot be
properly interpreted as the claimed ‘application,’” the Examiner points out
that Frese, at column 5, lines 26–29 expressly states “[b]ecause the RDM is
identified as an application program for the user’s computer, it is provided
with its own communication access to the local resource interface for the
user’s computer.” Id. at 13.
In view of the above cited express statements within the Frese
reference, which we find support the exact interpretation adopted by the
Examiner, Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to Ground of Rejection A
are unavailing. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the
claims as anticipated by Frese.

Ground of Rejection B
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 4–8,
12–14, 16, 18–22, 26–28, 31, 32, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frese in view of Hickman.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues the cited references fail to show or
suggest “storing on the client computer, a link for re-establishing the
communication connection.” Claim 2. The basis for Patent Owner’s
position is a belief that the URL disclosed by Hickman cannot be interpreted
as the claimed “link” because a URL is a “location” and does not generate
“some processor action,” which Patent Owner asserts is an essential element
of a “link.” App. Br. 12–13; Reb. Br. 2–3.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

8
Further, Patent Owner argues that Hickman fails to show or suggest
the claimed “storing” the claimed link, but rather merely teaches that the
client computer is “informed” of the URL. App. Br. 13–14.
Finally, Patent Owner argues that Hickman teaches the ability to
access any of a number of network computers, and thus cannot be said to be
“re-establishing the communication connection to the host computer.”
Id. at 14–15; Reb. Br. 3–4.
With regard to Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to the alleged
difference between a “link” and a “URL” the Examiner finds that Hickman
teaches that in response to a request to connect to a “network accessible
computer” (NAC), the URL of a NAC is provided, and by utilizing a Java
Applet, converted to a “link,” as depicted at reference numeral 78 in Figure
3A of Hickman (“Click Me To Connect”). Ans. 14–15.
With respect to Patent Owner’s argument regarding “storing,” the
Examiner finds that “inform[ing]” the computer in Hickman of the URL of
the NAC necessarily requires that the subject URL be “stored” within that
computer. Id. at 17–18.
Finally, in response to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the
existence of a number of network accessible computers (NACs) and the
consequent failure of Hickman to teach “re-establishing” the link, the
Examiner points out that Hickman, at column 4, lines 62–66, teaches that the
described cluster “can be reduced to a single network-accessible computer”
rendering each subsequent connection to the NAC a “re-establishing” of the
connection. Id. at 19.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

9
We concur with the Examiner. We find the described “Click Me to
Connect” disclosure within Hickman, in response to the provision of a URL,
to be suggestive of the provision of a link. Further, we find “informing” a
computer of any piece of data necessarily requires “storing” that data within
the computer because storing would be necessary for the computer to receive
the information. Finally, the express teaching of Hickman contemplates a
cluster with a single network-accessible computer (NAC) rendering each
subsequent connection a “re-establishing” of that connection.

Ground of Rejection C
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Frese, Hickman, and
Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) in view of the failure of the cited references to
show or suggest a “drag and drop” operation with respect to the claimed
“link.” App. Br. 15–16.
The Examiner finds that the URL of Hickman indeed suggests the
claimed “link” and consequently, a “drag and drop” operation on the
Hickman URL suggests the claimed feature.
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As we noted
above, we find the provision of a URL by Hickman to be equivalent to the
claimed “link.” because Hickman teaches the URL is converted to a “link”
by means of a Java Applet . Further, we acknowledge that “drag and drop”
operations are notorious in the art and find that a graphic indication of a
URL may be subject to a “drag and drop” operation as claimed.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

10
Ground of Rejection D
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 6, 9,
12, 16, 17, 20, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view
of Frese and Windows Secrets.
Patent Owner argues error on the basis of the previously argued
distinction between a “link” and a “URL.” App. Br. 16–17: Reb. Br. 15.
Patent Owner also argues that the “stateless nature of Frese”
prohibits any “link for re-establishing the communication connection.”
Patent Owner points out that Frese does not use client state information and
teaches away from the use of client state information and cannot therefore
“re-establish” a communication connection. Id. at 18–19.
Finally, Patent Owner argues that claims 6 and 20, which depend from
claims 2 and 16, recite “storing further comprises storing instructions for
rendering components of the application, default parameters and data values
exhibited within the components, and application-specific business logic for
processing input to the application.” Patent Owner argues the claimed
storing takes place on the client computer and that is not shown by the cited
references. Id. at 19.
We find no patentable distinction between the claimed “link” and the
disclosed “URL,” especially in view of the express description within
Windows Secrets of the creation of “link” and the description of that “link”
as a “URL shortcut.” Windows Secrets, p. 244.
The Examiner finds that Frese does not expressly prohibit any type of
communication connection from being “re-established” and Patent Owner’s
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

11
assertions regarding the intentions of Frese are conclusory in nature. Ans.
25.
We agree with the Examiner. Aside from mere conclusions regarding
reasons why Frese will not permit “re-establishing communication” Patent
Owner has not pointed to any express basis for asserting that Frese prohibits
the re-establishing of a communication connection.
With regard to the “storing” argument, the Examiner notes that
although the cited portion of Frese describes functions which occur at the
host, the data utilized to perform those functions is all stored at the client, as
set forth in Frese at column 7, lines 40–62. When Frese is considered as a
whole, the Examiner believes that the data stored at the client, even if
utilized at the host, suggests the claimed “storing.” Ans. 26-27.
We find the Examiner’s position persuasive. While the host within
Frese actually performs the various functions, that underlying data is stored
within the client (as noted above) and thus meets the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claims 6 and 20.
Ground of Rejection E
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 23,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frese in view of
Hickman in view of Outlook 98.
Patent Owner urges error on the part of the Examiner based upon the
failure of the cited references to disclose a “link.”
For the same reasons we set forth above, we do not find Patent
Owner’s arguments persuasive.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

12
Ground of Rejection F
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Frese, Hickman,
Outlook 98, and Hahn.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues the cited references fail to show or
suggest “the information to track transmission of the link comprises a global
unique identifier that is assigned to the link and information for identifying a
given client computer that has received the link” as recited in claim 11.
Patent Owner urges that the Examiner’s reliance on the URL as a global
unique identifier assigned to the link, and the email address as information
identifying the client computer are erroneous because a URL is unique only
to the server and the email address does not teach that a given client
computer has received a link. App. Br. 20–21.
The Examiner finds that Hahn expressly discloses “every hypertext
item on the Net has an address of its own . . . [W]ithin this system, there is a
unique URL for every hypertext item on the Net.” The Examiner interprets
this unique URL as a globally-unique identifier. (See Hahn, p.177) Further,
the Examiner finds that Outlook 98 teaches that an email address can be
used to identify a given client computer that received a particular link. Ans.
29–31.
We find the Examiner’s interpretation to be reasonable and factually
supported. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that a URL is indeed a
globally-unique identifier for the reasons given by the Examiner. We find
no more limiting definition within Patent Owner’s Specification. Similarly,
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

13
an email address, which is unique, can be utilized to identify a recipient of a
link.
Ground of Rejection G
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
7–9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21–23, 29, 30, and 33–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Tarantella and Frese.
Patent Owner argues that Tarantella is not a valid prior art reference
because it “fails to include a technical description.” Specifically, Patent
Owner urges that Tarantella is an “informal” document and fails as an
enabling disclosure. Patent Owner argues that Tarantella includes only a
general description of an Adaptive Internet Protocol and was incomplete
until the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 6,104,392, filed on November 12, 1998.
App. Br. 21–26.
Further, Patent Owner argues that Tarantella fails to disclose the
claimed “operating environment information regarding the client computer,”
“sending operating environment information regarding the client computer
to the host computer,” the “presentation information being based on the
operating environment information,” and “presenting, at the client computer,
the application and the content based upon the presentation information.”
Id. at 26–30.
Finally, Patent Owner argues that Frese fails to cure the argued
deficiencies of Tarantella and that Frese and Tarantella together fail to
suggest the claimed “link for re-establishing” for the reasons set forth above.
App. Br. 30–31.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

14
First, the Examiner finds that Tarantella was not cited under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, but rather under § 103 and is considered prior art for all that it
teaches. Ans. 33. With respect to Patent Owner’s argument that a
subsequent issued patent based on Tarantella was not enabling, the Examiner
again emphasizes that the Tarantella publication is being relied upon for its
teachings. Id. at 34. With regard to Patent Owner’s argument that Tarantella
fails to disclose sending operating environment information regarding the
client computer to the host computer, the Examiner points out that
Tarantella, at page 12, recites “[t]he first phase in this link is to pass
parameters identifying the characteristics of the client device and network
connection” which is utilized to display the application on both the client
and AIP monitors, which the Examiner interprets as operating
environment/presentation information which is sent to the host. Id. at 36-37,
39, 40–41, and 42.
With regard to Patent Owner’s arguments concerning the storage of a
“link for re-establishing” the Examiner points out that Tarantella, at page 10,
teaches that an “application session can be configured, by administrators, to
be resumable. In this scenario users can disconnect themselves from the
Tarantella server but leave resumable applications running.” The Examiner
further finds that the “saved” application can be resumed by “clicking” on an
icon, which the Examiner interprets as a “link.” Ans. 44–45.
We agree with the Examiner. The Tarantella reference, despite Patent
Owner’s characterization as lacking “technical description” is still a valid
reference for what it teaches. Further, we find that the “characteristics of the
client device and network connection” in Tarantella to be a disclosure of
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

15
passing parameters, which identify the characteristics of the client device
and network connection. Finally, we find a “resumable” connection, as
taught by Tarantella, to be a “link for re-establishing” a connection.

Ground of Rejection H
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 9, 17,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Tarantella,
Frese, and Windows Secrets.
The basis for the alleged error is, once again, the alleged failure of the
cited references to show or suggest the “link for re-establishing the
communication connection” for the reasons set forth above. App. Br. 31–32.
We find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the teaching of a URL
to suggest the claimed “link” for the same reasons set forth above.

Ground of Rejection I
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 4, 5, 7,
8, 12–14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Tarantella, Frese, and Orenshteyn.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues this combination of references fails
to show or suggest “storing, on the client computer, a link for re-
establishing” as set forth above. App. Br. 32.
Further, Patent Owner argues that Orenshteyn is not a valid prior art
reference, urging that the Examiner has relied upon portions of Orenshteyn
that were not present in the parent application. Id. at 33–34.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

16
Finally, Patent Owner argues that the Examiner failed to provide any
actual support for the rejection of claims 21, 22, and 26–28. Id. at 34.
The Examiner notes that Tarantella, rather than Orenshteyn, is relied
upon for the storage of a link to re-establish a communication connection,
reiterating that Tarantella expressly states that applications are designed to
be resumable, upon the selection of an icon. Ans. 47.
With respect to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding whether or not
Orenshteyn is prior art, the Examiner acknowledges that Orenshteyn is a
continuation-in-part, but asserts that those portions of Orenshteyn which
were relied upon by the Examiner, exclude the new matter (Figures 4–8 and
column 23, line 31 through column 25, line 37) added at filing of
Orenshteyn. Id. at 49.
Finally, regarding the rejection of claims 20, 21, and 26–28, the
Examiner acknowledges that these claims were included only by virtue of a
typographical error. Id. at 50.
We find that the Examiner has made a clear showing that Tarantella
clearly demonstrates a link (selectable icon) that, upon activation, re-
establishes a connection with the application. Consequently, we find no
error in the Examiner’s reliance on this combination of references.
Regarding the status of Orenshteyn, the Examiner has only relied
upon those portions of the reference that are entitled to the filing date of the
parent application. Ans. 49. We therefore find no merit in Patent Owner’s
argument.
Finally, in view of the Examiner’s admission, we find that claims 20,
21, and 26–28 are not rejected over this cited combination of references;
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

17
however, we note that those claims were rejected under Ground of Rejection
B.

Ground of Rejection J
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 9, 17,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of the combination
of Tarantella, Frese, Orenshteyn, and Windows Secrets.
The basis for the alleged error is, once again, the alleged failure of the
cited references to show or suggest the “link for re-establishing the
communication connection” for the reasons set forth above. App. Br. 34–35.
We find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the teaching of a URL
to suggest the claimed “link” for the same reasons we set forth above.
Ground of Rejection K
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10, 11,
24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Tarantella,
Frese, Orenshteyn, Windows 98, and Davis.
Patent Owner argues that Davis fails to teach or suggest transmissions
between clients, and cannot therefore suggest the monitoring of inter-client
communications. App. Br. 35–36.
Additionally, Patent Owner argues that Davis does not show or
suggest a “global unique identifier that is assigned to the link and
information for identifying a given client computer that has received the
link.” Patent Owner urges that Davis discloses two databases which are
utilized to track browser activities. One database tracks user activities and
the second database tracks web address activity. Patent Owner argues such
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

18
activity is inconsistent with the claimed identification of clients receiving a
link. Id. at 36.
In response, the Examiner finds that Patent Owner only argues the
Davis reference, while the Examiner’s rejection is based upon a combination
of references. The Examiner notes that transmissions of links between
clients is taught by the combination of Tarantella, Frese, Orenshteyn, and
Windows Secrets, while Davis is relied upon merely to show the storing of
information that tracks those transmissions. Consequently, the Examiner
urges that Patent Owner’s argument that Davis fails to show tracking
transmissions of links is not persuasive. Ans. 53.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here the Patent Owner argues that Davis fails to
show or suggest a global identifier assigned to a link and information for
identifying a client computer which received that information. The
Examiner finds that the transmission of links between clients is taught by the
combination of Tarantella, Frese, Orenshteyn and Windows Secrets, while
Davis is merely relied upon for a teaching that the information is stored to
track that transmission. Id. We therefore find no error in the Examiner’s
position for the reasons set forth above.

Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

19
Ground of Rejection L
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–6,
15, 16, 18–20, 29, and 31–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by the
published document ArcView.
Patent Owner argues that ArcView fails to disclose “execution of the
embedded computer program code establishing a communication connection
to a host computer.” Specifically, Patent Owner argues that ArcView
discloses a unitary call to the web server, which Patent Owner argues is not a
communication connection and consequently, ArcView cannot be
interpreted as disclosing the claimed invention. App. Br. 38–39.
Patent Owner also argues ArcView fails to disclose “presenting, at the
client computer, the application and the content based upon the presentation
information.” Patent Owner argues that the web browser application of
ArcView is the MapCafe, but Patent Owner argues that downloading a Java
Applet, by its very nature, is not based on the operating environment
information, as required by claim 1. Id. at 40.
The Examiner finds that in at least one embodiment, disclosed at page
5 of ArcView, the Web Server resides in the same computer as the ArcView,
as can thus be interpreted as the host, and therefore Patent Owner’s
argument that the web browser in ArcView is entirely unaware of the
existence of the ArcView server is without merit. Ans. 55.
Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments about the establishing of a
communication connection, the Examiner finds that “communication
connection” is a broad term and clearly encompasses the execution of
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

20
MapCafe which establishes a communication connection with the host as
depicted at page 34 of ArcView. Id. at 56–58.
We agree with the Examiner. In a single computer embodiment,
where the Web Server resides in the same computer as ArcView, we find the
embedded computer program establishes a communication connection with
the host computer. In addition, the ’838 Patent does not provide a definition
of “communication connection” that would exclude the disclosure of
ArcView as communication connection established between MapCafe and
the host computer.

Ground of Rejection M
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 4–6,
16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of the
combination of ArcView and Orenshteyn.
Patent Owner argues that the stateless operation of ArcView teaches
away from a combination with Orenshteyn, since the ArcView server must
be available for receipt of map display requests while Orenshteyn requires a
direct client/server connection. App. Br. 41.
Patent Owner also argues Orenshteyn fails to show or suggest storing
a “link” for re-establishing a communication connection and, as argued
above, is not a valid prior art reference. Id. at 42.
The Examiner finds that the proper test for a cited combination of
references is not whether or not the references may be physically combined,
but what the combination would suggest to one of ordinary skill in that art.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

21
In the present matter the Examiner points out that Orenshteyn was cited
merely to demonstrate the remote storage of a link for reconnecting to a host
computer, a feature absent from ArcView.
The Examiner points out that Orenshteyn discloses the use of a
graphical icon, which when selected can be utilized to “spawn” an
application, which the Examiner interprets as re-establishing
communications.
Finally, the Examiner reiterates that only those portions of Orenshteyn
which were entitled to the earlier filing date of the parent application were
relied upon by the Examiner.
The Examiner is correct that physical combination of the elements
described in two references is not required, and that the proper test for such a
combination is the suggestion that combination would raise in the mind of
one have ordinary skill in the art. Consequently, it is our opinion that the
teaching of a stored link for re-establishing a communication connection,
taught by Orenshteyn, as noted above, in combination with the teaching of
ArcView would reasonably suggest the claimed limitations for the reasons
given by the Examiner. .
Further, we find that the transmission of selectable graphical icons, as
taught by Orenshteyn, which may be utilized to spawn a corresponding
application, suggests the re-establishing of a communication connection, as
claimed. Additionally, those portions of Orenshteyn cited by the Examiner
are those portions having a proper basis in the parent application, rendering
Orenshteyn a valid prior art citation.
We therefore find no error by the Examiner.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

22

Ground of Rejection N
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 9, 17,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of ArcView,
Orenshteyn, and Windows Secrets.
The basis for the alleged error is, once again, the alleged failure of the
cited references to show or suggest the “link for re-establishing the
communication connection” for the reasons set forth above. App. Br. 43.
We find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the teaching of a URL
to suggest the claimed “link” for the same reasons we set forth above.

Ground of Rejection O
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting 2, 12–14, 16, and
26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of ArcView and
Windows Secrets.
Patent Owner argues that the stateless operation of ArcView teaches
away from a combination with Windows Secrets for the reasons set forth
above in Ground of Rejection M. App. Br. 43.
Patent Owner also argues that Windows Secrets fails to teach or
suggest a “link” as claimed, disputing the Examiner’s reliance on the
teaching of a “URL.” Id.
For the same reasons we set forth above we find no basis for Patent
Owner’s argument that ArcView cannot be physically combined with the
Windows Secrets reference. As we noted above, physical combinability is
not the proper test.
Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

23
Further, we have repeatedly found that the Examiner’s reliance on a
“URL” as suggestive of a “link” is within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of Patent Owner’s claims. We therefore find no error on the
part of the Examiner.

Ground of Rejection P
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 23,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of ArcView and
Outlook 98.
Patent Owner argues that ArcView fails to teach the claimed “link”
and teaches away from such a limitation. Further, Patent Owner argues that
the Examiner erred in relying upon Outlook 98 to cure that deficiency. App.
Br. 44.
The Examiner notes that physical combination of the elements of
references is not required and also finds that Outlook 98 expressly teaches
transmitting a URL or a “link” within a message, citing pages 135 and 202.
In view of the fact that physical combination is not required, and in
the absence of a clear teaching that expressly prohibits the combination of a
reference, we find no error on the part of the Examiner. This is particularly
true in view of the express teaching within Outlook 98 that a message may
include a “link.” See Outlook 98, pp. 135 and 202.

Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

24
Ground of Rejection Q
Patent Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of ArcView, Outlook 98
and Hahn.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues the Hahn teaching of an email
address does not teach or suggest a “unique identifier” assigned to a link.
App. Br. 44.
The Examiner finds that under a broadest reasonable interpretation,
Hahn discloses that a unique e-mail address as a global unique identifier and
that each hypertext item on the internet has a unique address. Ans. 71.
In the absence of a narrow definition which would restrict the claim
terms, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 25 over
the cited references.
Summary/Conclusion
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–38.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision adverse to the patentability of claims 1–38 is
affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this proceeding are governed by
37 C.F.R. §§ 1.956 and 41.79(e).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2015-007929
Reexamination Control 95/002,330
Patent US 7,502,838 B2

25
PATENT OWNER:

BECHEN PLLC
9200 Forest Hill Ave
Suite 4-C
Richmond, VA 23235

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

Michael V. Messinger
STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C
1100 New York Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20005